Monday, March 27, 2017

Because every election year the conventional wisdom has to be that Democrats need to distance themselves from their voters and try to be more like the GOP, this op-ed appeared in today's Times:

To Win Again, Democrats Must Stop Being the Abortion Party

By THOMAS GROOMEMARCH 27, 2017

Thomas Groome, eh? Never heard of 'im. So let's just check the old Wikipedia and. . .

Thomas H. Groome is an author, academic and former priest. He is a professor in theology and religious education at Boston College.[1]Groome was born in County Kildare, Ireland. Groome studied at St. Patrick's, Carlow College and was ordained as a Catholic priest in 1968.

Oh, well. An Irish Catholic theologian. Obviously, he's got his finger on the pulse of the American electorate.

. . . once-solid Catholic support for Democrats has steadily eroded. This
was due at least in part to the shift by many American Catholic bishops
from emphasizing social issues (peace, the economy) to engaging in the
culture wars (abortion, gay marriage). Along the way, many Catholics
came to view the Democrats as unconditionally supporting abortion.

If you mean unconditionally supporting the rights of women to choose whether or not to have an abortion, a position shared, by the way, by a majority of American Catholics, then yes. That is an accurate view of most Democrats.

Last year’s election was a watershed in this evolution. Hillary Clinton
lost the overall Catholic vote by seven points — after President Obama
had won it in the previous two elections. She lost the white Catholic
vote by 23 points. In heavily Catholic states like Pennsylvania,
Wisconsin and Michigan, she lost by a hair — the last by less than 1
percent. A handful more of Catholic votes per parish in those states
would have won her the election.

So, to sum up, in the last 3 Presidential elections, the pro-choice candidate has won outright twice and lost once while getting 3 million more votes than her opponent. And this is due to what, exactly? Pennsylvania Catholics becoming more pro-life since 2012?
Or maybe it has more to do with the fact that a large percentage of American voters were stupid enough to believe that the guy with the solid-gold toilet spoke for the American working class while the former Secretary of State ran a child-prostitution ring out of the basement of a local family restaurant.

She lost Michigan, as you say, by a "hair." A few more catholic votes might have pushed her into the win column. So might a few more Muslim votes. Or Jewish votes. Or Scientologist votes. Or maybe she might have gotten more "urban" votes had she gone to Flint and raised holy Hell about the water there. Maybe she might have gotten more progressive votes had she gone to Standing Rock and said "Mr. President, do not allow this pipeline!" But sure, the smart move obviously would have been to take the anti-choice position, garnering a few extra votes from conservative Catholics whilst completely alienating the entire Democratic base.

Oh, hey, maybe she could've come out against marriage equality and pushed "right-to-work" laws while she was at it.

In its directive,
“Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” the United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops make clear that American Catholics do not
need to be single-issue voters. The bishops say that while Catholics
may not vote for a candidate because that candidate favors abortion,
they can vote for a candidate in spite of such a stance, based
on the totality of his views. Yet despite that leeway, abortion
continues to trigger the deepest moral concern for many traditional
Catholics, including me.

Well, there's good news and bad news on that front. The good news is that there are fewer and fewer "traditional Catholics" in America these days, as more and more people leave the Catholic Church. The bad news is that the Church has accomplished this by allowing itself to become a safe haven for child molesters. But sure, go ahead and get on your high horse about abortion and "moral concerns."

Also, not to nit-pick, but generally, academics do not use the phrase "including me." They usually say "including myself," or "including this author."

Polls indicate that the nation holds mixed views about abortion. About
80 percent of Americans don’t want to criminalize it again. At the same
time, at least 60 percent of Americans — and most likely a higher
percentage of Catholics — oppose abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
Yet despite the clear complexity of those attitudes, political discourse
largely ignores the possibility of a middle ground between making all
abortions legal or prohibiting them entirely. Mrs. Clinton, like most
Democratic politicians, fell into this either/or trap last year.

Oh, and Trump didn't? The guy who said that there should have to be some kind of punishment for women who terminate pregnancies? The guy who promised to nominate anti-choice judges from a list given to him by the Heritage Foundation? That guy didn't fall into the "either/or trap?"

When asked about abortion in the third presidential debate, Mrs. Clinton
focused on the importance of a woman’s right to choose, saying: “I
strongly support Roe v. Wade.” But in making it appear as if she was
viewing a wrenching moral decision only through a legal lens, she was
losing many Catholic and evangelical voters.

Oh, right! Because Catholic and Evangelical voters were all gung-ho to vote for the woman that FOX and Rush have been telling them is the embodiment of evil since the 1190's. It was only her overly-legal take on Roe v Wade that lost her the Progressive Evangelical voting block!

Somehow, Ms Clinton's failure to acknowledge that aborting is a difficult decision before supporting the right of women to make that decision caused these voters to instead pull the lever for the candidate who has no concept of what a "wrenching moral decision" is and just says what the hell, let's outlaw it!

For them, her uncompromising defense of Roe was comparable to telling a
group of Quakers, “I’m in favor of war,” without even mentioning
preconditions.

No. No that's not similar at all. Because "I'm in favor of war" is an insane thing to say without a whole lot of context around it. Like, if one were to say "since the Japanese have bombed Pearl Harbor and killed Americans and have shown no signs that they plan to cease this kind of aggressive action, I have to say that I am in favor of war with Japan," that makes sense. That's something reasonable people can debate. Butj ust as a generality "I'm in favor of war," that's fucking insane. Whereas, I'm in favor of letting women make their own decisions about their reproductive systems" really doesn't require a lot of context.

Mr. Trump, in contrast, offered a graphic description of “ripping the
baby out of the womb in the ninth month, on the final day,” as if this
were standard procedure. (More than 90 percent of American abortions are
in the first trimester.)

Right. And if only he had acknowledged what a difficult, heart-wrenching moral decision this was, perhaps he could have carried the Catholic vote, oh wait.
I guess it's only pro-choicers who have to couch their stance in the language of heart-wrenchery and moral quandritude.

Also, does it not matter to you that she was honest and he was lying? Or is that not the kind of moral issue that conservative Catholics care about?

Thursday, March 23, 2017

I just saw this transcript of the interview that Cheeto Mussolini gave to Time Magazine and Holy Schneikes, he's worse than we thought.
Not only is he completely delusional, but he can barely string together a coherent sentence. He makes George W. Bush look articulate.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Hey, Michael.

TIME: Hey Mr. President, Thank you for taking the time.

Absolutely. How have you been, OK?

Yeah, it has been a wild couple months. You keep us busy.

Yeah, it’s been good though. It’s been good.

Good? Good? This is what you consider a good couple of months?What the hell would a bad month look like?

So far, the flight's going prrrretty smoothly!

Do you want me to give you a quick overview [of the story]?

Yeah,
it’s a cool story. I mean it’s, the concept is right. I predicted a lot
of things, Michael. Some things that came to you a little bit later.
But, you know, we just rolled out a list. Sweden. I make the statement, everyone goes crazy.
The next day they have a massive riot, and death, and problems. Huma
[Abedin] and Anthony [Weiner], you know, what I tweeted about that whole
deal, and then it turned out he had it, all of Hillary’s email on his thing.

Your statement on Sweden was bullshit. I don't even know what you may have said about Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner, but if you think you were somehow prescient in thinking that Hillary's close associate might have received e-mails from her, well I just don't know what to tell you.

Wait. You said "Brussels is not Brussels?" And that's something you want to be sure to get credit for? You want to make sure that everyone remembers "hey, I'm the one who said that Brussels is not Brussels! Don't forget, you heard it here first!"

But
there’s other things you said that haven’t panned out. The peg for this
story is the wiretapping hearing on Monday, in which [FBI Director
James] Comey and [NSA Director Mike] Rogers testified about your tweets there.

Yeah well if you’d look at, in fact I’ll give you the front page story, and just today I heard, just a little while ago, that Devin Nunes had a news conference, did you hear about this, where they have a lot of information on tapping. Did you hear about that?

Yes. "They" have a lot of information on "tapping." And exactly NONE of that information is that Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower.

Now remember this. When I said wiretapping, it was in quotes. Because a
wiretapping is, you know today it is different than wire tapping. It is
just a good description. But wiretapping was in quotes. What I’m talking
about is surveillance. And today, [House Intelligence Committee
Chairman] Devin Nunes just had a news conference. Now probably got
obliterated by what’s happened in London.
But just had a news conference, and here it is one of those things. The
other one, election, I said we are going to win, we won. And many other
things. And I think this is going to be very interesting.

Okay, first of all. . .

The first two times, it was not in quotes. The third time it was because consistency is not your strong suit.

Also not a strong suit.

And, um, " here it is one of those things." That just doesn't mean a damn thing.

So
you don’t feel like Comey’s testimony in any way takes away from the
credibility of the tweets you put out, even with the quotes?

No, I have, look. I have articles saying it happened.

Really? Name one. In what publication did this article appear? On what day?

No, I have, look. I have articles saying it happened. But you have to
take a look at what they, they just went out at a news conference. Devin
Nunes had a news conference. I mean I don’t know, I was unable to see
it, because I am at meetings, but they just had a news conference
talking about surveillance. Now again, it is in quotes. That means
surveillance and various other things.

How is it in quotes? It's a press conference. That means he was speaking, not writing. Did he do the little finger-quotes every time he used the word "surveillance?"

"Surveillance!"

Look. I predicted a lot of things that took a little of bit of time. Here, headline, for the front page of the New York Times, "Wiretapped data used in inquiry of Trump aides." That’s a headline.

Yeah, because if you tap the phones of enough Russian government officials, you're eventually going to hear Paul Manafort or Michael Flynn. You know what the headline doesn't say? That Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower!

Anyway, the interview goes on for a while and my brains are starting to leak out of my ear, so I'm going to bed. Maybe we'll look at more of this trainwreck tomorrow.

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

(Via: C & L) On Thursday, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett ripped into Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke regarding Clarke's misplaced priorities:On Friday, perhaps after celebrating with a few green beers,
Clarke took to the official Facebook page of the Sheriff's Office to have his tantrum:Comment from Sheriff Clarke in response to Barrett’s recent remarks about the sheriff:“The last time Tom Barrett showed up at a crime scene he got his ass
kicked by a drunk, tire-iron-wielding man who beat him within inches of
his life. The milquetoast mayor trying to play cop foolishly thought he
could simply talk the man who beat him senseless into backing down. Bet
he won't try that again! Timid Tom should leave policing to the professionals like
me, and stick to coming up with a plan to reduce the violence,
carjackings, random shootings that leave children dead, and the burglary
ring currently plaguing the north side of Milwaukee.. . . Whoever told Barrett it was a good idea to come out of hiding and take
shots at me gave him some bad advice. I will give Tom "Mr. Peepers"
Barrett this much credit however - he would know what a crime scene
looks like because Milwaukee is full of them. If you had to call for
help, who would you rather see show up, me or timid Tom? Time to crawl
back into your hole Tom, unless you want some more of this because I
have some.”

Okay, first of all, if you're gonna swagger around like a tough guy, threatening him with another round of mockery is pretty weak sauce.
Secondly, it's pretty pathetic to complain about how crime-ridden your city is when you're the fucking sheriff!
And third, I don't think that a man who confronts an angry, tire-iron-wielding criminal can really be described as "timid."

2. Former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg.

Democrats: Don't Use Republican Playbook on Gorsuch

Democrats long complained about the way Republicans treated President
Barack Obama. When Republicans refused to cooperate on legislation,
when they threatened to shut down the government, when they stonewalled
his Supreme Court nominee, Democrats lambasted them -- and justifiably
so -- for dereliction of duty. Yet now that Donald Trump is in the White
House, Democrats are threatening to adopt the very same tactics,
concluding that they need to fight like Republicans. In other words,
it’s their turn to act irresponsibly.Of course, what goes around
comes around, and the hunger for payback among Democrats is
understandable. But the rule we all teach our children applies to
Congress as well: Two wrongs don’t make a right

Ugh, I am so sick of this shit. I am so goddamm sick and tired of Democrats/Progressives/Liberals being told that we have to be the bigger person. It's like a parent telling the older child to just let the younger one have his way so he'll stop throwing a tantrum.

And this isn't even about the need for one party to be the grownup in the room so that some sense of decorum or maturity or whatever can somehow be restored to Washington. This is about the future of our country. This is about a Supreme Court justice that will serve for a generation, creating precedents and upholding or striking down laws that affect peoples' lives. And the only reason that this Gorsuch is even a possibility is because Republicans threw the tantrum of all tantrums and, in an unprecedented display of fucketry, refused to even consider any nominee from the last administration. Some even stuck out their lower lips and said they were happy to let the seat go unfilled for four more years should Hillary Clinton be the next President. And they got away with it in part because the Democrats felt obligated to be the bigger persons. The Democrats felt the need to be the mature adults in the room. They should have been in front of every camera and microphone they could find screaming bloody murder over this sickening display of rank partisanship, this utter disdain for 200 years of process. And the President could have and should have put Garland through as a recess appointment, or had Biden gavel in the Senate before the new members were sworn in just to vote on the nomination, but he didn't. Because he had to be the bigger man. And look where that got us.

So when a patrician little pipsqueak like Mike Bloomberg who won't personally feel the effect of any Supreme Court decision on his life, wants to tell the Democrats to be the grownups, I have just one thing to say to him:

3. Former Governor and current sack of crap Mike Huckabee

HUCKABEE: Well, it's springtime. It's time for the snowflakes to melt
and accept the fact that Donald Trump is president. And if that is her
message, she can be very honest and say look, we don't have to like what
he proposes. We don't have to like him, but we have to accept that he
is the president and we have to respect the office of the presidency.

Don't you mean it's time to pretend that the president isn't an American citizen? Or that it's time to accuse the President of being in league with terrorists? Or of being a gay-married, abortion-supporting enforcer of Sharia Law? Because you can't seriously be calling on people to "accept" the President and "respect the office" after the way you and your FOX buddies spent the last eight years.

If she would say that, then I'll believe she's trying to bring us
together. If all she's going to do is raise her fist in the air and say
resist, well look, it's too late to resist. That's what we do every four
years. It's called an election. Donald Trump won and people need to
accept it. Again, they don't have to like it.

Ah, the acceptance!

This is America. We're free to disagree. But we're not free to
try to delegitimize the duly elected president of the United States.

Wow. "It's too late to resist" is probably the most terrifying thing I have ever heard a public figure say.

And as for "we are not free to delegitimize the president," I don't know what's worse. The stunning level of hypocrisy, or the utter failure to grasp how the 1st Amendment works. Either way, sit down and shut up, Gomer!

Tim Allen Says Supporting Trump in Hollywood Is “Like ’30s Germany”

In this town, I’m not kidding, you gotta be real careful around here,
you know, you can get beat up if you don’t believe what everybody
believes. This is like ’30s Germany! I don’t know what, I don’t know
what happened. If you’re not part of the group—“You know, what we
believe is right … ” I go, “Well, I might have a problem with that.” I’m
a comedian—I like going on both sides.

No.
Jeezus Christ, you right-wing crybabies have no perspective.
"Ooh, I didn't get the part I was up for. This must be what it was like on the Trail of Tears!"
"My agent isn't returning my calls. Now I know what the Bataan Death March was like!"
Being a conservative in Hollywood is like 1930s Germany? Fuck you it isn't.

Who has gotten "beat up" by Hollywood liberals? I know you haven't. You haven't even had trouble finding employment. You're the "star" of yet another awful sit-com despite your one-note, two-dimensional "acting" style and utter inability to be at all funny. You haven't been persecuted. And neither have Kelsey Grammer, Jon Voight, Patricia Heaton, or any of the other Hollywood conservatives. When you keep getting paid huge sums of money to appear in movies and tv shows, it's pretty pathetic to whine about how tough you have it in Hollywood.
And even if you were being blackballed from showbiz, even if you did find it socially uncomfortable to express your conservative vbiews, no one is herding you poor, beleaguered right-wing actors onto train cars headed for death camps which is ACTUALLY WHAT HAPPENED TO PEOPLE IN 1930s GERMANY YOU GODDAMM PIECE OF SHIT!

Saturday, March 18, 2017

Today we lost the legendary Chuck Berry. Probably the greatest writer of rock and roll songs and one of the greatest American songwriters in any genre. I put him in the same league as Hank Williams, John Prine, Townes Van Zandt, etc.

What makes this especially sad is the fact that he had recently announced plans to release his first new recordings in over 30 years. Hopefully the recordings were completed and can be released posthumously.

Chuck Berry will always be remembered for the "duck walk" and the signature riff, but he never does get enough credit as one of the all-time great songwriters.

That's why EVERYONE covers Chuck Berry:

>

“If you had to give rock’n’roll another name, you might call it Chuck Berry” -John Lennon

“Why should I write songs when Chuck Berry wrote them all?” -George Thorogood

Trump Supporters Call For 'Liberal Genocide' and Deportation of Jews at Arizona Rally

Maricopa County burnished its reputation as the Trumpiest in America last weekend as hundreds of locals, including heavily armed militamen, white nationalists and even a few elected officials, gathered to support the 45th president.

"If she's Jewish, she should go back to her country," a 13-year-old Trump supporter said of a protester."This is America, we don't want Sharia law," one attendee explained. "Christian country," he added.

Quite right, sir! We do not want to live in a country whose laws are based on the Quaran. We want to live in a country governed by the Book of Leviticus! Less boning, more stoning I always say!

One man insisted that Senator John McCain was a "secret communist."

Oh, Senator McCain! Aren't you glad that you thrust Sarah Palin into the national spotlight and enabled and emboldened these cousin-fuckers? Aren't you proud?

"I think there's a lot there," another said of Pizzagate, a deranged
right-wing conspiracy theory claiming that Clinton's campaign chairman
John Podesta ran a child prostitution ring out of a Washington, D.C.
pizzeria. "Definitely enough to warrant an investigation."

I just want to let them know that I can't wait for the liberal
genocide to begin," an Oath Keeper shouted at a small group of
protesters. "That's the way to make America great again," he later told Cohen.

So I'm expecting someone from the Drumpf Administration to publicly condemn this sort of violent, eliminationist rhetoric any day now.

Oh, and this happened in Ohio, which used to be one of our saner states:

Ohio bill to make marital rape illegal gets no support from state Republicans

Loophole means prosecutors seeking rape convictions must prove 'force or the threat of force' if a spouse is attacked

Wait, that can't possibly be right, can it?

A proposed law that would make it illegal for husbands to drug and rape their wives has found no backers among Republicans in Ohio.The bill is the second introduced by Democrat state representative Greta Johnson to address the “unacceptable” loophole in Ohio law
that means prosecutors must prove there was “force or the threat of
force” for a sexual attack by a husband or wife to be considered rape.Cases in which the spouse is drugged do not qualify for prosecution, Ms Johnson said.

SO you support a bill that would allow any woman to claim a man
drugged her and raped her (keeping in mind women already have numerous
advantages when it comes to making accusations), creating a scenario
where it would be virtually impossible for any man to adequately defend
himself, but would then get to go to Family Court with the word “rapist”
hanging around his head?
No, seriously, how does one defend against such an accusation?Her: “He gave me wine and then we had sex…”Him: “Well, that’s true you’re honor, but we’ve had date nights for the past fifteen years…”Judge: “That will be 20 years in prison for you, fucking rapist, and now she owns everything you’ve ever earned.”You: *smugly nods* “Justice is done.”Me, not a fucking psychopath:

Because, from what I can see on the internet, there are a lot of men out there who sincerely believe that women just go around making false rape accusations all the time, whenever a man pisses them off, and the justice system just takes these women at their word and jails the men who have been falsely accused instead of what actually happens, which is pretty much the exact opposite.

Because there's nothing fascisty at all about threatening the fourth estate.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman—and Trump transition team member—Rep.
David Nunes (R-CA) gave a press gaggle Thursday a not so subtle warning
to the press about pursuing the Trump-Russia connections.

"I'm sure some of you are in contact with the Russian embassy so be
careful what you ask for here, because if we get —if we start getting
transcripts of any of you or other Americans talking to the press, then
we can, do you want us to conduct an investigation on you or other
Americans because you were talking to the Russian embassy? I just think
we need to be careful."

How delightfully Cheney-esque!
Hey, you better not do any reporting on Russia or we'll fire up the old HUAC machine so fast, it'll make your head spin!

Executive privilege, which wouldn't apply since the contacts between the Russians and administration officials took place prior to Drumpf taking office. And also, the Administration would be the one to claim executive privilege, not Congress. You can't claim executive privilege on behalf of the executive. That's like a prosecutor claiming attorney-client privilege on behalf of the accused. It makes no sense.

“Maybe we shouldn’t believe what they say.”

On Wednesday, CNN’s Sara Murray reported that President Trump manipulated a team of CNN anchors into providing him with hours of positive coverage ahead of his first speech to Congress on Tuesday night.

No explanation was given for the entire year of positive coverage given to Trump leading up to the election when CNN fluffed him like a gay-for-pay pornstar on his third shoot of the day.

“He had this meeting with the anchors, he talked about a path to legal status,” Murray, a D.C.-based political reporter,
said.
.

Woah, woah, woah. Hold on a second.
Why the hell are your anchors having meetings with Il Douche? How are you sitting down with the person whose feet you're supposed to hold to the fire and discussing what your coverage of him should look like?

“Basically they fed us things that they thought these anchors would
like, that they thought would give them positive press coverage for the
next few hours. A senior administration official admitted that it was a
misdirection play.”

How many times?
How many times are you going to fall for this bullshit? You know he lies. I mean, you know that every politician lies, but you have to know by now that nobody has ever spewed out the sheer volume of lies or more obvious lies than Cheeto Mussolini. Why would you for one second believe that anything he's telling you might possibly be true?

He lies about crowd size when you can see the crowd with your own eyes. He lies about sex tapes that don't exist when you can find out that they don't exist in two minutes on Google. He lies about receiving letters from the NFL when the NFL denies ever sending such a letter and the letter wouldn't have made any sense anyway. I mean, asking one of the candidates to unilaterally postpone a debate? How would that even work? You'd have to get both campaigns, the host network, the host venue, the Secret Service all onboard at the least. and you'd do all this because the NFL is afraid that people won't tune into a game if they have the option of watching the 2 most disliked candidates in history debating each other? Anyway, the point is, he's the biggest liar in the history of liars and you actually believed him when he said he wanted to come up with a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants? The group that he railed against all during his campaign? The people that he insists are rapists and murderers? A path to citizenship goes against everything he stands for.

Pictured: What he stands for.

Murray went on to note that “when the president was actually out there
speaking to the American public, he didn’t talk about a path to legal
status.”

Of course he didn't! No one thought he would! Well, no one with any sense. I mean, you know, no one who doesn't work for CNN.

Host John King responded by observing that “it does make you wonder, so
we’re not supposed to believe what the senior-most official at the lunch
says… maybe we shouldn’t believe what they say.”

Bra - Vo! Well done. You've finally figured it out. You've finally figured out that when a compulsive liar tells you something, it's probably a lie.You're a regular Sherlock Holmes, you are.

Oh, here's something else that you'll probably figure out on your own in another year or two, but I'll save you a little time: No matter how much you kiss his ass, no matter how shinily you polish his apples, he is never ever going to love you the way you love him. He is always going to call you "fake news" and the "Clinton News Network." He is always going to accuse you of lying about him. It doesn't matter what you say - it doesn't matter if your coverage is positive or negative, completely true or totally made up, he has to hate you. The entire Republican Party has to hate you.

It's like me and the Los Angeles Dodgers. I don't care if their players spend the off-season giving adorable kittens to needy orphans. I don't care if team management donates all proceeds to cancer research. As long as they have that "LA" logo on their caps, I will always hate them. Is it rational? Probably not. I'm sure many fine upstanding gentlemen have played for the Dodgers over the years. But the Los Angeles Dodgers are the personification of evil, so it doesn't matter how kind or generous or loving they are. I will always hate each and every last one of them.

Anyway, you guys are supposed to be journalists, you're not supposed to take anyone's word for anything. You should expect people to lie to you. That's why you corroborate stories with multiple sources, and do this thing called "investigation." And for God's sake, you call a lie a lie!